Jump to content

GPUs that support accelleration in MacOS 8.6

Recommended Posts

when i say accelleration i mean mostly 2D + GUI accelleration..for working in apps... not 3d games;)


ok its common knowledge for some time that the radeon 7000 is one of the best graphics cards for the b+w g3..... just resurrecting mine this last week, i had nothing but headaches with a radeon 7000 PCI card, which i believe is one of the ones sold on ebay by user "howfunkel" its a saphire radeon 7000 probably a PC version thats been flashed. what im not sure of is whether or not the rom is 64kb or 128kb chip on the card and/or whether or not its using the full 128kb mac rom for the 7000 gpu, or if its using a amateur-hacked-reduced 64kb version



basically without checking those facts for certain based on my experience with using the card im guessing it is the reduced rom.. and that they somehow yanked some of the code out of the rom that was to do with managing the vga port in order to get the size of the rom below 64kb... effectively ruining dual display ability because when i try to boot with this sapphire 7000 card in my b+W g3, if i have the monitor connected to the VGA port, the screen doesnt adjust itself properly + the resolutions are not set properly as they would with a real mac edition card (i noticed by observing my 8500 + another 9200 mac edition PCI i have) so the rom file has to have been hacked.

there is a workaround i guess if u are only using one monitor off hte card -- i think if u use a dvi to VGA adapter and attach the monitor to the DVI port this way, then theres no problems at all! and the problem with resolution on the vga port could probably be fixed by adjusting monitor contrl panel. i just dont want any of these little headaches anymore i just want the right card that works 100% good always as long as im using os8.6 + 9.22  - some people are lucky and buy the right perfect hardware combo from the getgo.. some of us are forever cursed :D hahahaha


i wish i was skilled enough to relace the rom file and reflash it myself but thats above my comfort level (lol) so im probably just going to order a real mac edition card on ebay.. the real mac edition cards are mostly on GREEN PCBS and they have 32MB of ram not 64mb.. 


most of them have the circular older radeon style logo printed in whtie on the pcb, some are oem vga only and some are retail or BTO i guess? having DVI + Svideo + VGA



the other facts i know/read:

"MacOS8.6 has built in support for all Rage 128 graphics" 

does this mean that any older rage 128 pc cards will "just work" without flashing?

id be interested to find out


im wondering if the Radeon 7500 AGP would work..

given that the only machine that had AGP that could run os8.6 was the sawtooth

which is a tiny window of time, so im guessing they wouldnt have gone too far out of their way to make custom drivers for the small percentage of sawtooth owners that managed to pick a radeon 7500 to upgrade to.. but i know there were some 7500 AGP cards with ADC i saw them on ebay just yesterday




my thinking is.. if the radeon 7000 can get 2d accelleration working in macos8.6

maybe the radeon 7500 can aswell? (as opposed to the 9xxx series cards that

work fine in os8.6 but have no accelleration support such as the 9200 + 9800 etc)

does anyone have experience with attempting this in combination with  os8.6?


its my understanding that the 8500 can have 2d accelleration working under os8.6?

can anyone confirm that? 


so my thinking is if the 8500 supports it.. and it came out in October 2001..

then the 7500 must aswell given that it was out in July 2001


please share if u have any comments that can be constructive

im using software + hardware packages that were made in the mid-late 90s

lke 1995 1996 1997 and that why i prefer to use os8.6 for compatibiltiy with these apps i use

its great performance on a g4 450mhz with sata pci disk storage upgrade


heres some notes i put together last nite about the timing / release dates of gpus related to mac os 8.6 vs mac os 9.2 - most people know the os9 ones.

os8.6 support is trickier to research aswell being obscured by many different MacOS versions over the many years!


Ati mach 64 - 1994

The 3D RAGE was released in April 1996

s3 virge july  1996

matrox Mystique on August 14, 1996.

rage pro LT -Nov 1996

ATI's 3D RAGE™ PRO  - match 1997

matrox mystique 220 - 1997 ?

Matrox Millenium 2 - Jul 1997

Voodoo Rush - Aug 1997

Riva 128 - Oct 1997

The first RIVA TNT released on June 15, 1998

banta march 1999

Riva TNT2 - May 1999

ATI Rage 128 Pro - August 1999

matrox g400 released in September 1999

The Geforce 256 was released on Oct 11 1999

Riva TNT2 M64 - Oct 1999

Riva TNT Pro - Oct 1999

Radeon DDR 32mb/64mb - May 2000

Geforce 2 - April 2000,

Radeon SDR - July 2000

GeForce2 MX - September 7, 2000.

Geforce 3 - January 2001

Radeon 7500 - July 2001

Radeon 8500 - Oct 2001

Geforce 4 Ti - April 2002

Radeon 7000 mac edition april 2002

Radeon 9000 - Aug 2002

Radeon 9500 - Oct 2002

Radeon 9200 - April 2003

Radeon 9800 Pro - March 2003

GeForce FX 5200 - april 2003

GeForce FX 5900 Ultra - May 2003

GeForce FX 5700 - oct 2003

Geforce FX 5900XT - December 2003

Radeon 9600 XT - Sept 2003


so according to this april 2002 was a major cutoff point as geforce4 TI and radeon 7000 both came out then..

after that it was just 9xxx series + FX Geforce


another list of cards on this site:



i also think the original radeon retail mac edition card (radeon VE or Radeon 7200 later called)

will work in os8.6 with accell?



anyways.. i think the rule of thumb for radeons is to look for - GREEN PCB

-32mb of ram or less - ^^ this white circular ATI RADEON logo


i think thats the key to getting one that works properly with mac os 8.6

at least im guessing.. maybe some users can confirm or deny


What about Nvidia Geforce 2MX or Geforce 2/3 Retail cards

can Geforce 6200 have 2D Acelleration under 9.22 or 8.6?

what about Riva 128? Riva TNT? are those supported on Mac os 8.6?

Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the R7000, you see that tiny eight legged chip near the top of the board, not too far back from the rear panel? Read the part number off that and we can tell you if it is 64k or 128k. IIRC, the 25p05 is 64k and the 25p10 is 128k.


Even with a full ROM file I had some difficulty with a monitor at start up some times. I can't remember the details any more but I suspect an authentic Mac card would have had the same problem. My troubleshooting suggested it had to do with new (at the time) method of the video card sensing what monitor was connected. I had an old CRT that way predated that detection system, but it was a really nice E-machines or Radius monitor with both VGA and Mac connectors and a reversible cable. It was that monitor that caused problems. However, if I inserted a Mac to VGA adapter and then a VGA to Mac adapter (so no net change in connector) in the cable the problem went away.

Edited by trag

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



I suspect an authentic Mac card would have had the same problem

hmm i disagree here.. im hoping you are wrong!!! because my 8500 + 9200 mac edition cards work fantastically on sttart up..

if i did a pram reset or nvram reset they immediately somehow snap the graphics up from 800x600 or something to a proper aspect ratio fit for my monitor type resolution whether thats 1280x1024 or 1680x1050


i think if the rom is properly flashed it should (it must?) act the same way because programming is programming.. ;)

its probably the same code that makes it work for all of them - 

im hoping that getting a 7000 or 7500 with a green pcb will be basically the same as an 8500.. 


the 9000 is a bit different i understand because it was a die shrink or a new stepping of GPU?


the RV250 chip


and the radeon 7500 is put down as "RV200" 



the radeon 7000 is put down as a "RV100" type gpu



wheras the radeon 8500 is just the regular old "R200" gpu chip



original radeon "mac edition", DDR, SDR etc all are "R100" gpu type



if u follow the naming convention of the gpu itself and not the marketting name

then u see there is some type of connection between the original series (R100)

vs the "V" modified/revision/reversion? (RV100) which would make the

original radeon mac edition (R100) a closer relative to the Radeon 7000 (RV100)

in the same way, the 8500 (R200) to the 7500 (RV200).. 

i think they are STRONG + LIGHT versions of the same cpu type.. or "extreme" vs" mediocore" similar

to other products marketting.. like consumer pricing/grading strategy they employ

for the intel i3/i5/i7 processors.. 


so if os8.6 supports 2d accelleration on the R100, RV100 + R200 then surely it must be supported on the RV200! (Radeon 7500) but it just wasnted the card that was produced in graet numbers for whatever reason. timing.. demand.. *Shrug* not sure the difference or significance of the "V" maybe it just means another "Version"?

*shrug* id have to google to find out what the v is signifying!


Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
re: the small chip on my card. its so small i can hardl make out the characters i need to get a magnifying glass

i could barely make out the numbers 512 about 3/4 of the way thru the sequence of letters 

which would stand for 512Kbit i believe? if thats similar to the  pm39LV512 512Kbit chip then that would stand for  = 62.5Kbyte

which means its a 64kb ROM just like i suspected...... which is why im not getting proper mac performance because the real rom is for a 32mb card that has a 128kb flash chip to hold the ROM file.

the rest of my notes on the other rom chips to do with the sil3112 cards say that:


pm39LV010 1Mbit = 125Kbyte
pm39LV020 2Mbit = 250Kbyte
PM39LV040 4Mbit = 500Kbyt


so i guess the 128kb flash rom chips might have 010 in the sequence somewhere if its a 128kb flash chip
Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note, the Radeon 7000 ME that I seem to come across most often is the single VGA like what shipped standard in the Xserve G4 and I think was optional in the Xserve G5. I've actually noticed some oddball behavior when using these cards in B&Ws and other pre-AGP Macs, but most of them have been combined to OS X. As best as I can tell, they get full accel in OS 9 so I assume anything that runs OS 8.6 would be good also.


As to the question about PC Rage 128s-the short answer is no. They must have Mac ROM to work in Macs.


We gained the ability to use PC cards in OS X 10.7, but even at that they don't work at the firmware level-the screen doesn't come "alive" until the GPU kexts load(this neat little fact has kept MP 1,1s going well beyond their prime).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep i bet theres still alot of macpros + q6600s doin heavy lifting in the shadows :)

ive hear many stories of friends fixing up their mac pros to use newer cpus + newer graphic cards 11 years after the fact.. running latest mac os still.. not bad..


thats the type of bang for buck that the g3/g4 first brought to the table

thats the type of mac everyone wants.. but apple no longer making


i wish i lived in a parallel universe where apple actually had a line of products for the home/hobby user that conforms to all established STANDARDS of the PC + computing industries.. that we could still take apart + fully customize.. 

i hope someday some other company can step up to the plate and get this right.. on a hardware + software + os level.. give us control over our machines.. let us customize.. upgrade or downgrade as we see fit..  anways this is getting offtopic;) 


im still suspecting that i can get a 7500 AGP card flashed + working in os8.6!~ im just working up the motivation to actually rip my 7500 agp out of my pentium 4 to try it.. if only i had an original geforce 256 or geforce 2 to test in sawtooth os8.6 machine aswell. 

i have a geforce 2mx.. and 4mx.. i guess i can test those next. but i think the cutoff was the radeon 9000 pro? have one of those two wil have to test;)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is... topic-adjacent. None of this will be surprising thoughts, but since we're editorializing a little bit:


I think there's lots of old computers still doing real work. Especially in light or otherwise unchanging workloads, there's really a point at which your computer can't really move your work faster, or perhaps faster enough to put the money into it, though it depends on what you're doing.


On the PC side of things, at least for Windows, Windows 10 is slimmer and faster than everything since XP. Putting Windows 10, an SSD, and literally any semi-modern GPU (GeForce 640 anyone?) into anything with a Core2Duo on the 965 chipset or newer will net you a really great system for office, light web use, and probably even a certain amount of creative/artwork type tasks. (Though the money on maintenance bits, a Windows 10 license if you didn't already buy 7 or 8 for it to upgrade from, the new GPU if you don't already have one with WDDM support, an SSD, the RAM, might end up costing more than just buying a new inexpensive desktop computer, but I haven't specifically gone shopping.)


On the Mac side of things, OS and hardware support is more of a concern going back ten years, but Hackintoshing Mac Pros appears to be somewhat popular.


Most of what this says isn't about the specific longevity of that hardware, but rather, about the fact that software has been getting better and about the plateau most computing tasks are currently on. 




There's a balance, for sure. Not "everybody" wants the either MMMM or a  newer tower Mac Pro, but some people do, have for a decade now. Back in the days when the "Classic" Mac Pro 1,1 through 5,1 were being built, the argument was essentially that Apple should build something using hardware that looked more like the iMac, but in a modular enclosure to make it more flexible. Thus: Midrange.


My personal headcanon is that the prototype people are looking for is essentially OptiPlex business desktops (which map really well back to the Power Macintosh 6100/7100 and the later 7000 series in terms of making a huge Dell/HPQ/Lenovo product stack) or Dell XPS "multimedia enthusiast desktops" which usually focus on semi-premium experience, expandable, and the maximum available horsepower (within certain limits) of the mainstream Intel chipset.


I think that there's a contingent that wants this, but I think it's generally agreed that it's not enough to be profitable.


Now, whether or not it's worth building it (or returning to a dual socket, more modular Mac Pro design) is worth it as a halo, loss leader or passion project, only Apple can really decide.


I think if we were to see a return to some kind of mainstream desktop Mac without a built-in display, I'm guessing that what you'd really do best to expect is something that looks more like a bulked out Mac mini than a Mac Pro or an OptiPlex/XPS. It might have a quad-core desktop CPU, but it would be be a low-wattage model. It might have discrete graphics, but they would be extremely tightly integrated as they are on the Mac Pro, to work better with Thunderbolt.


I'm guessing the best we can hope for would be something that had modular storage, ram, and perhaps a socketed CPU. That would go a long way, although it would need to be complemented on either side by the minimalistic "facebook and iwork" Mac mini and the actual Final Cut and XCode powerhouse, the Mac Pro. (Which itself probably wouldn't get a whole lot more expansion, but the Xeon CPUs, higher memory ceiling, and bigger GPU(s) are important for its market.)


On the other hand: Apple's basically at the highest  peak of their success so far and sells an awful lot of Macs. Even if fans want it, Apple really isn't depending on them for success.


There's supposed to be (per indications from Cook and Schiller) a new Mac Pro this year. I'm guessing it will either be Skylake-EP + Vega, or Naples + Vega. (The latter, despite the Mac Pro being such a low volume product, should scare Intel a lot, even though Apple won't really end up using most of Naples' most compelling-looking features, which is essentially that in a 2s design it scales further than HSW/BDW-EP do. I think Broadwell-EP is already using DDR4 RAM, so at this point we can probably make a guess that Skylake isn't going to increase density or capacity on that platform (the way it did moving from Z97 to Z170). That's another story though, because I'm guessing Apple's never going to build up the Mac Pro to the level of, say, the Dell Precision 7-series, which had arguably been a step or two above the classic Mac Pro, sporting more of.. almost everything, really. (The best comparison there is 5-series, which was also dual socket, had a closer number of pcie and ram slots, closer number of disk bays, etc.)


Anyway, here's to hoping Apple changes up the lineup a little bit to make it work better for their customers. We'll see what happens though, in the time between the release of Haswell-EP in 2014 and today, I think Apple has been losing a lot of mindshare in spaces where that level of horsepower is relevant.


Developers might be the biggest reason for Apple to build a passion project "Mac" or "Mac Pro" -- All of Apple's computers on sale today, including the MacBook and 2014's Haswell-U based Mac mini can run XCode, but it's well documented that having a really beefy system helps. There's no reason Apple shouldn't be able to build a Mac Pro that supports 128-256 gigs of RAM. More if they move away from the cylindrical format to something that lets them build bigger boards. (HSW-EP/BDW-EP support up to about 1536 gigs of memory in their biggest 2-socket implementations. -EX platforms for 4/8 socket designs are going to support more, of course.)


At the end of the day, I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that Apple can and maybe even should build some more compelling computers. They left the four-quadrants model behind years ago, so it's not like we're dealing with some sort of minimalistic mandate where Apple doesn't already have what amounts to five (mini, imac 21.5 1080p, iMac 21.5 4k, iMac 27 5k, Pro) different desktop models that unclearly straddle the home/pro line, along with their unruly lot of laptops.


On the other hand, I don't agree that it's actually necessary for Apple's survival or that "Everyone" or even half of Mac users, or even a quarter (or hell even 10%) of Mac users actually wants the MMMM or a bigger and more modular Mac Pro.


I do think that the platform would benefit from a halo Mac though. Happy software developers stick around, and a huge benefit to Mac OS X is absolutely its indie software ecosystem. 90% of Mac users aren't buying the systems because you can pop open the side and install a new graphics card. They're buying it because of Pixelmator, DayOne, Transmit, BBEdit, or even just because of Safari, iMessage, Mail, Pages, and iMovie. They're buying it because what Apple has been trying to sell with the Mac -- and this has been one of Apple's core messages since 1984 when the thing was first on sale -- is a single-source computing platform that looks and behaves consistently, has good support, is cost-effective and a good value, and gets out of your way and do your work.


Flashing graphics cards to upgrade a G3 is interesting, but it's not what the Mac platform is about, for people who buy them new and use them to do work, and I don't think it ever has been, even when Apple sold systems that had a lot of internal expansion opportunities. (Which were chiefly proprietary and unique to the platform until the mid '90s, at which point they started using the same slots, but driver availability was thin, and PC graphics cards have almost never worked on Macs.)


Sidenote: Despite proprietary form factors on the Mac Pro, nearly everything is swappable and repairable. Its SSD is not soldered, its RAM is normal DIMMs, the CPU can be taken out and replaced, and the GPUs and power supply and motherboard, while all totally proprietary, remove easily. An okay technician should be able to strip, clean, replace any bits, and reassemble a Mac Pro in an hour or so with what you'd reasonably expect to come out of a small toolkit while working at the Genius Bar in an Apple Store.


It's not like their pro desktop isn't modular, it's just not built using parts you can buy at Best Buy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm i just realized the radeon 7500 agp  i posted above has ADC.. so it was probably BTO option for vgigabit ethernet G4's - i think they were the ones to introduce the ADC connection - They were released in July 2000.. but the radeon 7500 itself wasnt released untill July 2001 i think... so that lines up more with the "digital audio" macs, but given that it used ADC aswell, no wonder ATI printed up some 7500 AGP with ADC to support these new machines at the time.. and the radeon 7500 + 8500 were there powering all the os9 goodness;)


i havent tried a geforce 4 Ti4600 in person, but to my eyes i love working in classic mac os with the radeon 8500 with its proper drivers installed + acell'ed its jsut got a great feel to it doing everyday computing tasks dragging stuff around etc..  


just checked here: 


apparently the "V" does stand for "Variant" or "Budget variant" which is suggested on this wikipedia page (author unknown?)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

im hoping someone with some vintage knowledge will show up ;) 

arent there some older cards that provide really good 2d performance?


anyone hard of an Image 128?



anyone heard of the proformance 3?



what about the matrox mac card?



what about the Promax DH?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own at least one example(I'm underestimating-actually most likely two or more) of every single Mac-edition OS 9 compatible AGP GPU. Yes, I even have the rare ones like Geforce 3s(multiple).


IF I have time this week(I have to also get the head pulled off the engine in MG in my limited evenings this week) I will install 8.6 on a Sawtooth and for accel.


Does anyone offhand know of a GPU benchmarking program that will run in OS 8.6.


BTW, as far as the 9000 goes-I don't think so. It was the standard GPU for a lot of MDD Macs, so came along fairly late in the product cycle. In fact, if you use a retail OS 9.2.1 disk(the last retail disk) or a Quicksilver 9.2.2 disk(will work on all preceeding AGP G4s) the 9000 will give problems. You have to dig up the ATI drivers for 9.2.2(I have them on a red ATI disk, but they aren't too hard to find on the internet) and install them for the computer to actually work with the 9000 installed. The only way it will work "out of the box" so to speak is to use the MDD 9.2.2 install or the universal install. I maintain a rather "interesting" Quicksilver operating legacy hardware at work that has a 9000 and I keep a clone of the install in my office because it's so dang much trouble to set up.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

if anyone can link me with any past articles on this topic that would help me out alot


for gpu benchmarking isnt it macbench that everyone used to use?



check this out


i noticed owc still sells the radeon 7500 AGP with ADC 

wasnt the 7500 a more rare card then the 8500 or 9000?

i have one for pc, i might flash it and give it a go


does anyone have one of these ADC mac edition 7500s?

anyone know the size of the rom chip?

Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

the more i search the more apalled i am that this info is just not on the internet.. really? not archived anywhere at all?


noone specifies which radeons or geforces if any at all are driver supported + 2d accellerated in mac os 8.


surely graphics accelleration was a concern for people  i guess they just used rage based graphics cards so they didnt need drivers? or worrying about accell? i just HATE the "Roll up" effect that my windows do after being moved on the classic macos, it does it with my 9200, my 9800 pro, my 9000 pro,


literally the rage 128 GL card is more usefull then these cards without proper driver accelleration

because it doesnt do the "roll up" effect when moving windows (drives me nuts!!)


surely we have some macintosh people here who remember 1998 i guss its a fading + Distant memory :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the lack of information is that the combination of 8.6+AGP graphics is quite uncommon. Remember that OS 9 came out while the Sawtooth was still current.


absolutely!! i agree its very uncommon!!!! the sawtooth g4 is one of the only ones that can do it. but i think there are TONS of sawtooths still around? because these machines DO NOT DIE! they even come back from the dead! lol (seriously i have seen it happen more than once!) 


but regardless of the AGP/PCI issue.. seems like noone ever put all the info together into a published document

on which PCI GPU's actually have mac os 8.6 accellerated drivers that allow for proper window drag+drop + scrolling etc.. just good 2D performance !!! 

its also a small window i guess between mac os 8's initial release in Summer 1997 up until October 1999 when MacOS 9.0 was released + took over.... and then finally the very dramatic funeral (7 Jan 2002) RIP MacOS9 by Steve Jobs -- so really its a 4 year period at least that mac os 8.6 was current + still relevant (alot of 9.0 products would at least depict compatibility with 8.6 on teh packaging etc)

so all in all it was CURRENT + RELEVANT for 4 years, 6 months to be exact!!!!


if u wanna get specific.. Mac OS 8 was the best + current version of Mac OS for 2 years, 3 months... thats still kind of significant dont u think?

plus it was a very formative 2 year period where the internet became much more mainstream!

i guess alot of those early badly html coded versions of websites were removed and taken offline +

magazines/ books have long since dissappeard - 20 years ago!!!!! mac os 8 ;) its been awhile


i think another point is that during those 2 years + 3 months that mac os 8 was current + king.. 

is maybe im lookng for somethning i already have :) lol

the rage 128 pro was the best of that category of cards i guess..

which is why it came with the sawtooth to begin with!!!!!

but before that according to the info i posted at the start of this thread,

was the TNT2, TNT, Riva 128, Matrox Millenium II pci.

i guess there really wasnt much other NEWER options of cards back in those days

so for other options you have look at OLDER options?


i tried to see if the Riva cards had mac os drivers but i saw a comment someone

posted saying that they were not supported so i stopped lookijng.


"The NVIDIA TNT2 was the first chipset to offer a 32-bit frame buffer for better quality visuals at higher resolutions, 32-bit color for more realistic colors, and a 32-bit Z/stencil buffer for incredible 3D effects; blazing the trail for modern graphics processing units (GPUs) such as GeForce 256 (First Geforce Card) and GeForce2 GTS (Second Geforce Card)"


i couldnt find any info on whether or not TNT, TNT2 or RIVA 128 was ever supported by macos + pci powermacs. 


im not even sure if the original geforce 256 came in a mac edition card?


the info i want to know is obscured by the fact that this card came out right when os9 also came out

in october 1999? ill try to find a manual.. info further obscured by the fact that tthere are millions of diff cards

with the name geforce now :)

Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider 8.5/8.6 to be quite a different OS from 8/8.1. In any case, that's splitting hairs.


And, again, you're asking specifically about AGP GPUs. There was a 6 month window when 8.6 was current and Macs with AGP slots were available.


To be honest, though, I see complaining all the time in one of my other major hobbies-watch collecting-about the lack of a certain type of information online. I'm going to step onto my soap box and say that online information doesn't magically appear. Guess what-if you're looking for something and can't find it-online isn't the only way to find it.


I'm offering to take the time to actually test it with hardware, but that's because the information doesn't appear to be out there and I have the means to test it.


But, I'll give my standard response-rather than whining about information not being on the internet, tough up and find it out yourself.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think if the rom is properly flashed it should (it must?) act the same way because programming is programming.. ;)


I agree. The cards I was testing were Sapphire brand R7000 cards, but I had replaced the 64K Flash chip with a 128K chip and the chip was either programmed on a chip programmer with a copy of the original ROM, or I just installed a blank chip and IIRC, version 2.08 of ATI's upate would happily program a blank chip.


In either case the code was unmodified ATI firmware for the R7000 on the Mac. I suspect that ATI's implementation of DDC on the R7000 may have been a little buggy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought, I really have more crap on my plate to do right now that test an obscure combination of applications.


Supernova777, I've spent many hours of hunting and probably over two thousand dollars putting together the full range of AGP PowerPC GPUs. I bought them for specific applications and to have as part of my collection of "G" era hardware.


I'm going to once again tell you that if you want to find this out, find out for yourself. The GPUs you're asking about mostly aren't expensive or hard to find.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, again, you're asking specifically about AGP GPUs. There was a 6 month window when 8.6 was current and Macs with AGP slots were available.



the gpus are also available on pci versions which would have been compatible with other machines running os8.6 - the info is out there - just have to dig for it - like i just did in the original post + have been doing this entire thread!


To be honest, though, I see complaining all the time in one of my other major hobbies-watch collecting-about the lack of a certain type of information online. I'm going to step onto my soap box and say that online information doesn't magically appear. Guess what-if you're looking for something and can't find it-online isn't the only way to find it.


I'm offering to take the time to actually test it with hardware, but that's because the information doesn't appear to be out there and I have the means to test it.


But, I'll give my standard response-rather than whining about information not being on the internet, tough up and find it out yourself.


i think its hilariously ironic that you would make such an assertion.. whining? im communicating specific information clearly + asking to draw upon the experience of other people if they so wish to share it

im not demanding any assistance from anyone! 

but if u must know, between my site www.oldschooldaw.com + www.macos9lives.com i have about 6000+ posts of myself "toughing up + finding out for myself" and then also taking the time + effort + dedication to share that info for other that might find it helpful or valuable. and going to the extent of making sure that i did so on my OWN website so that no other "admin" can edit/delete or mess with my comments + content to ensure that that content STAYS ONLINE for reference purposes..so im going to blow that comment off realizing you arent familiar with me personally, so i wont take it personal ;)


anyway i have no other comments re: your assertion that i'm "Whining on the internet because i cant find the info i want" 

ill switch my focus back to my chosen topic.. a topic that came up as im working on two machines with os8.6 installed - b+w g3 450 + sawtooth 450

hopefully thats ok with you Bunn.

Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

trag: no offence but i hope u are wrong! ;) the only way to know for sure is for me to get my hands on a *real* offical mac edition 7000 or 7500 card!!! 

Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Proformance III in my S900 Frankenmac and I'm happy with it, but I don't know how it would compare to other cards. There's not much chance of you finding one in any case.


Much of the information you want has come and gone. The video card flashers/hackers developed much of this stuff but many of their forums are now gone (themacelite) or very hard to find (maddog). Even the compatibility database and many of the older articles at xlr8yourmac.com are gone or hard to access.


As to video benchmarking in Classic, i think MacBench 5.0 is probably a good choice.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense taken, and wrong about which part? I can absolutely guarantee that those Sapphire cards had 128k chips as I ordered them from Digikey and soldered them myself. I also know that both methods I used loaded unmodified ATI code as I used files straight from ATI's website for both methods. I also definitely had problems with that one monitor, but the problems weren't entirely consistent which made it difficult to nail down.

Edited by trag

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supernova, I can't help but think you're judging the late 90s world of PowerMacs by 2017 hobbyist standards. Sites like this didn't exist, closest you would likely find be a usenet group. People were mainly using the machines in period to do real work, not as a hobbyistproject. My employers at the time were buying PowerMacs to produce Travel Brochures to be sent for printing. They didn't care about AGP support in OS 8 and flashing third party cards, as long as they could run Quark with their workflow. If they needed an upgraded ATI Card, they bought it from the Mac reseller and paid the support tax.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

trag: i just meant i hope u are wrong about the actual faultiness being on the part of ATI themselves.. and of it possibly being present in both the real mac cards + the flashed ones.. regardless of flashrom capacity or flashing 
i hope the real mac edition magically works and that the problem is just a result of reducing the rom



magic: i was around back then and working in web design + media industry so i remember what it was like!

agp support for os8.6 - maybe u are right and it probably really didnt even exist.. except for the rage 128 pro that came with the sawtooth

maybe it was only hacked into place for the specific os8.6 install for the sawtooth?


i actually started thinking about this after seeing a post made by a user named "MacOSPlus" on ThinkClassic.org


im trying to find the original thread and cant seem to find it ATM but heres another thread thats VERY interestijng INDEED!!!


looks like he/she was able to put this radeon PCI card into a sawtooth's AGP slot via a riser/adapter and it WORKED!!

so PCI + AGP arent that drastically different? or the riser re-aranged pins to match?

i dont understand whats going on here but i plan on reading to find out:)


i just sent macos plus user a message maybe we can find out more 

Edited by supernova777

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Unknown-K mentioned earlier if you wanted a high res 2D card for classic Mac OS you went to a Mac specialist graphics board maker like Radius, IxMicro. I think the Matrox Millennium worked as well.


At the end of that era ATI Rage, 3Dfx and Riva TNTs etc were gaming cards, not general purpose GPUs as they have now evolved into. The Radeon and GeForce ranges with hardware T&L arrived in the OS 9 era by which time OS X was the future RealSoonNow. The ATI cards had reasonable 2D performance being based off the Mach 64 and always had half decent Mac support. 3Dfx and nVidia didn't really have much clue outside 3D environments as their background was in arcade machine and consoles. Anything Pre OS X won't use the clever bits of those cards to accelerate the GUI anyway. It's the era of BitBlt where fast VRAM and big RAMDACs were of benefit for drawing the GUI at high resolutions. OS X was way ahead of it's time when it started utilising an OpenGL capable graphics card to assist in rendering the GUI.

Edited by MagicBoy

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now